There may be bits and pieces that are misunderstood, but there's one important thing that is very clearly understood: for most photographers it is a hefty price increase. After the initial investment, Photoshop was $11.11/mo. if you bought *every* update ($200/18 mos.) or $5.55/mo. if you skipped a version and bought every other update. Now Adobe wants $19.99/mo., every month, for the rest of your working life. For many photographers this nearly doubles, or more than triples, the long term cost. Adobe makes great products, but such a hefty price increase will inevitably lead more customers to alternative software.

It's no wonder people are saying the "CC" in Adobe CC stands for "Cash Cow".

I understand that I am so disaffected with Adobe that I no longer care what they do. I will use my CS 6 till PhotoLine or another alternative is necessary and then ditch Adobe completely. They have told me my little business is insignificant to them. With Iridient Developer for raw conversion, the time-buffering of my CS6, and the inrush of alternative software that will fill the void left by Adobe's Cloud-forcing idiocy, they are rapidly becoming irrelevant to me and my business. I'm actually beginning to feel pretty good about this; I, like many others, had become too dependent on every burp & gurgle of this bloated behemoth. I like that there is about to be a lot more competition and choice. The Genie is out of the bottle and Adobe, the fools, let him out.

I like that there is about to be a lot more competition and choice. The Genie is out of the bottle and Adobe, the fools, let him out.

Indeed, this really is a wake up call. I was about to budget the upgrade to CS7, although I cannot really say I am using most of the elements of the package enough to really justify the upgrade price.

Now that they have the facto End of Lifed Photoshop (and CS as a whole), it is starting to look like Adobe has just helped me save nearly half the cost of a Zeiss 55mm f1.4.

The only people I truly feel sorry for are the engineers at Abode who are really interested in helping photographers achieve their art. They have lost over the course of a few hours a huge amount of passion and kinship to their software that had taken years to build thanks to their talent.

I expect many of those engineers to seriously consider whether they are still interested in staying onboard a corporation that is OK to kill so lightly that kind of invaluable - if intangible - knowledge resulting from the usage of Photoshop.

Call it mindshare, call it community, whatever it is, it has gone down the drain.

This kind of events are pretty rare in history. We have many cases of platforms (H/W or S/W) that had started to lose it disappearing and leaving fans stranded behind. But those were typically far right in their obsolescence curve. PS was still much closer to the top of the curve.

The only people I truly feel sorry for are the engineers at Abode who are really interested in helping photographers achieve their art. They have lost over the course of a few hours a huge amount of passion and kinship to their software that had taken years to build thanks to their talent.

I expect many of those engineers to seriously consider whether they are still interested in staying onboard a corporation that is OK to kill so lightly that kind of invaluable - if intangible - knowledge resulting from the usage of Photoshop.

Well said. I'm reminded of the Disney-trained Imagineers who are designing the brilliant new theme park attractions for Disney's competition (Universal and others) that are slowly but steadily closing the gap with Disney's increasingly pricey, but decreasingly innovative, theme parks. Creatives who for the last decade have been leaving Disney's increasingly marketing-driven, beancounter-burdened, creatively straightjacketed workspace for other companies, several of which were founded by more senior Imagineers who left before them for the same reasons.

As a creative culture Adobe has shot itself in the foot. What remains to be seen is how slowly or quickly comes the draining of the esprit d'entreprise that is -- rather, was -- its lifeblood, where and under what name(s) its creative forces will regather, and what new products they will generate.

I have CS6 and LR4 and will likely get LR5. But I have now downloaded the Gimp and its manual to start getting ready for the transition. Much to my surprise, at first glance it looks much more appealing and powerful than I had ever expected.

Maybe the interface doesn't look as sophisticated as does that of CS6, but it has layers, lots of filters, and a huge array of tools, as well as a set of easy-to-follow tutorials.

And the "subscription" price is right (free)!

I plan to make copies of the converted basic tiffs of a couple of my more complicated images and see if I can come close to duplicating them in Gimp.

I have CS6 and LR4 and will likely get LR5. But I have now downloaded the Gimp and its manual to start getting ready for the transition. Much to my surprise, at first glance it looks much more appealing and powerful than I had ever expected.

Maybe the interface doesn't look as sophisticated as does that of CS6, but it has layers, lots of filters, and a huge array of tools, as well as a set of easy-to-follow tutorials.

And the "subscription" price is right (free)!

I plan to make copies of the converted basic tiffs of a couple of my more complicated images and see if I can come close to duplicating them in Gimp.

There's no way I can afford Adobe's subscription prices.

why 'd you use gimp if you have PS CS6 ? I mean gimp has long way to match PS CS6 ... so you can postpone your gimp-pain.

You can't because Gimp doesn't have adjustment layers, and of the programs I have seen that do, none has "clipping" adjustment layers.

If you guys will pitch in a couple $1,000,000.00 I'll be glad to lead the team that will develop Image Editor Supreme!. The exclamation mark is part of the name.

Just launch a Kickstater project!

On the lack of AL, that is a bit annoying, but I have come to realize that I end up applying 2 or 3 at most on most of my images.

There is an easy workaround which consists in simply storing history as duplicated layers. The bottom one is the original file, the one just above would be the global curved applied, the one above would have local edits...

It is not as quick as AL when you need to change your mind, but it should work fairly well in many cases.

^ Photoline looks pretty nice and may be the best option right now. But it interprets layered PS files a little differently than PS, and I believe it does not have a clipping option to restrict adjustment layers to a single layer below it. So psd imports require a certain amount of work to even things out. Not sure about smart filters and groups and such, I don't much use that stuff. Unfortunately the version I tried chokes on large PS files.

If miscommunication is part of the problem, I'd argue not the public's fault (those who misunderstand), but rather "poorly communicated". A few misunderstanders,perhaps. Thousands, I beg your pardon.

Exactly what statements from Adobe have you read or watched? I watched the keynote announcement at Adobe MAX, have you? I watched the Tom Hogarty session on Scott's Grid, have you? I've read Winston's answers on PDReview, have you? I've read the web statement Adobe posted, have you?

Or, are you getting your information second hand from various media outlets? You realize the media is like a shark when there's blood in the water, right? Their job is to "inform" but they generally do more inciting than informing.

Yes, this is a hot button topic with a lot of hysterics involved...but the amount of misinformation out there is staggering. Yes, when asked, many/most users hate the changes and are not shy about telling people/media about their opinions.

Normally I tend to shy away from talking about politics (it's a no win debate) but let me draw an analogy from politics regarding this situation...politics these days is no longer collegial, it's confrontational. Between 24hr news channels, talk radio, the left and right bloggers and the pressure on politicians to adhere to the party lines, nothing, it seems can get done in Washington. Reasonable people can't seem to have reasonable debate about the important topics of the day.

The line is drawn and anybody not on your side of the line is an evil villain (and it doesn't matter what side of the line you are on, you are just on the wrong side of the line).

The other thread "Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions" is a prime example...anybody who dares to take Adobe's side is evil incarnate...and the anti-CC crowd keeps egging each other on until they are frothing at the mouth and any reasonable discourse is impossible.

Adobe was prepared for this onslaught...I had a 2.5 hrs call with Winston and outlined all the issues that the photographic industry would push back on. I warned them that photographers really don't understand copyright law, don't understand license agreements , don't really want any change...even if the change may end up being good.

Adobe is painfully aware that what they are doing is/will be unpopular for a segment of the industry. For pros, it ain't no big thing, just a different way of looking at things and accounting for the cost of doing business. Yes, they aren't "happy" with having what amounts to a price increase, but it won't drive them away from Adobe because, well for pro applications in digital imaging, graphic arts, design, web and video, Adobe is the 800lbs gorilla. In a production environment, you use pro tools to get the job done. Will CC offer some additional functionality that enhances team collaboration and production? Well, yeah...Adobe demoed a lot of that at Adobe MAX. Pretty cool stuff. Remote employment is a reality these days with projects being worked on on a global basis. Having a project plugged in on a cloud environment designed for professionals is pretty compelling....

And if any of you fail to remember, Adobe is a company that excels at one thing, designing professional applications for use by professionals. That's what they are good at, really good at (and about all they are good at). Look at the markets Adobe "owns": graphic design with Illustrator and InDesign, digital imaging and graphic arts and prepress with Photoshop, web design with Dreamweaver. The one market Adobe doesn't own outright is digital video because Apple's Final Cut Pro has a large segment of the market. Adobe knows pros ad what they need/want and a long track record of delivering.

So, Adobe's decision to go to a subscription model for their pro apps was designed and intended for their pro markets which makes up the vast majority of Adobe's customers-and it ain't just corporations and governments (although that is a core market) it's all the small design and production studios out there doing this stuff professionally–and there are a lot of small houses out there!

Photographers might not like it, but photographers make up a very small % of the overall user base for all the pro apps with the exception of Lightroom that, as far as I know, is used almost only by photographers. And Lightroom is the only Adobe pro app that hasn't gone CC (even though it's part of the CC eccosphere as well as still a perpetual license. (wait, did I just give you all a clue?)

Has Adobe done a poor job of messaging their CC initiative? To the pro markets, not really...the pros are starting to get it...a monthly nut and they get all the apps they need and free new upgrades with new features as long as they stay subscribed...yes, there's an effective price increase–which is a pittance to the total cost of operating. Now it's up to Adobe to come through on the promise of more frequent upgrades with new features which is one of the main motivations to going all subscription.

Has Adobe done a poor job of messaging their CC initiative to non-pros? Well, yeah...Adobe really doesn't know how to deal with non-pro customers. Adobe doesn't do very well with non-pro applications, they've never been very successful selling consumer products. They don't understand the non-pro market because, well to Adobe, it's a small minority of the potential user base. Do they ignore the non-pro markets on purpose? Nope...but they are just not really good ant communicating to the non-pro markets because, well they don't have a lot of expertise and experience because, well Adobe is a company that makes pro-level apps.

Did Adobe do the CC initiative purely to piss people off? Nope...they new people were gonna be pissed. They were warned by many (myself included). They knew they would be castigated by the press and the vocal non-pro market. They did it anyway because they (Adobe) honestly believes tat this is the best way of addressing their core market, professional now and in the future. I tend to agree with the decision–even if that is across party lines and I'm attacked from the "other side". Ya know what? I don't care...I say what I think and don't care what people think of me. I really, really don't. I call it as I see it and perfectly happy to live with the consequences...It would be a lot easier to just toe the party line and join with the "Adobe Haters Club". Since I've got good inside info and I know where the bodies are buried, I could do Adobe a lot of damage. But I don't because, well I've got a lot of friends who work with Adobe and I know Adobe really and truly tries to do what they think the right thing is to do. But heh, nobody is right all the time. Maybe Adobe has screwed the pooch big time...time will tell.

What they did was actually very brave...it took a lot of guts for Adobe to do what they believed was the right thing to do for Adobe and the pro marketplace. I respect them for being able to do the hard thing, draw a line in the sand and say, this is what we believe and we are gonna do what we believe regardless of how loud the opponents become.

I get that non-pros don't like the CC decision...I also get that the pros are on the fence with an attitude, prove to us that the CC will be useful and important and helps use get the job done and make more money–remember pro users are in the same boat as Adobe, it's a business and the bottom line is, well the bottom line. Pros don't work in design out of the goodness in their hearts, they do what they do to make a living–same as Adobe. That's the capitalist way.

If you are not a pro, not a capitalist in your use of Adobe software, well, let me just point something out that may not (will not) make you happy, Adobe doesn't make Photoshop for you...the fact that so many non-pros have bought Photoshop is not really Adobe's fault. It's not like they've ever really tried to go after the non-pro market. All of Adobe's marketing and advertising is directed towards the pros...because that's the market Adobe knows.

So, if you are a non-pro and are unhappy with Adobe's decision, vote with your wallets...look for an alternative...the upside of this situation is that small, innovative companies might look at the non-pro photo market and see opportunity. We might see new and interesting if not compelling new products in the marketplace. Personally, I think this is a pretty cool opportunity and may be exactly what the industry (if not Adobe) needs. Competition breads excellence...Adobe has given the small developer an opportunity to compete in a market that here to fore was totally owned by Adobe–which kept out a lot of potential players...it a bizarre and perverse manner perhaps, Adobe may have just done the non-pro photo industry a huge favor by relinquishing what to Adobe is a small segment of their markets, but for a small developer could be a huge boon.

The thing I would caution people about is make your judgements based on reality and facts, not the bullshyte that has been thrown out there by a bunch of people with anonymous screen names on the internet...

If you are not a pro, not a capitalist in your use of Adobe software, well, let me just point something out that may not (will not) make you happy, Adobe doesn't make Photoshop for you...the fact that so many non-pros have bought Photoshop is not really Adobe's fault. It's not like they've ever really tried to go after the non-pro market. All of Adobe's marketing and advertising is directed towards the pros...because that's the market Adobe knows.

what you are going to eat when LR will go subscription only... or LR is also for pros only ?

Schewe, do not cheat... it is not "anti-CC", it is "anti-CC only"... add this small word and half of your long diatribe is useless... and what is left from it is simple - Adobe just wants to make more money by going "subscription only" for legit users, that's it... and we understand that... as for pirates they will continue to pirate CC as they do with M$ products now... because CC is not really a cloud based application, it sits on your computer - it just rings back, so they will make it ring back to their servers... only legit users will end up paying more.